Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Mike Champion" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Hmm. That's a very interesting thought, and I would not at all disagree that lots of automated
> testing is a Good Thing. But this doesn't persuade me that either a) a type-based "contract" will
> meet many real business needs [which was probably not your intention] or b) that one can cut humans
> out of the loop and simply use a type-based validation failure to "reject" a business document in any
> business process sense. It seems to me that having humans in the loop for quality assurance is just
> as important as having humans in the loop for security assurance (see Bruce Schneier's oft-cited
> opinions described in http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/09/mann.htm ).
I can "imagine" a case where several institutions in a finance-related industry are using a common schema for applications, but each institution uses Schematron to vet applications based on their
business rules. Ultimately, the (encrypted) Schematron schemas could be
uploaded to the client-side so that a single application can be vetted by agents onsite.
Now, for this kind of use, the more type-aware Schematron can be, the better.